On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 11:26:52 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > + if (cpu != -1) > > > > + mutex_lock(&workqueue_mutex); > > > > > > events/4 thread itself wanting the same mutex above? > > > > Could do, not sure. I'm planning on converting all the locking around > > here to preempt_disable() though. > > please at least use an owner-recursive per-CPU lock, a wot? > not a naked > preempt_disable()! The concurrency rules for data structures changed via > preempt_disable() are quite hard to sort out after the fact. > (preempt_disable() is too opaque, preempt_disable() is the preferred way of holding off cpu hotplug. > it doesnt attach data structure to > critical section, like normal locks do.) the data structure is the CPU, and its per-cpu data. And cpu_online_map. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
